This_person
Well-Known Member
It's not an absurd argument. A single officer on an open campus like that is not protection of the type to repel boarders. That's a guy there who can't make it on the streets, and will put the fear of God into kids who get in a fight in the cafeteria. Completely different from actually having armed guards (note, the plural of the word). You would have to rob the comfort and freedom of the children involved by putting them on a closed campus, controlling access, probably having strong fencing, security cameras, etc. In short, you would have to treat the kids like prisoners in order to protect them from the infinitesimal danger they face, and cost taxpayers easily 7 figures a year to provide actual security, which a single officer is not intended to provide.
No assault weapon, by strict definition (since you set the standard that we are going by strict definitions), was used in this incident.But, your point is well-taken - if this kid did not have a gun, he would have done no shooting. But, this gun he had was not his only gun. So, the only way to have stopped him from having guns would have been to ban all guns. That's not reality, so you really have no point.
Facts? When did you post those?
But, yes, I have an idea that living free is better than living as a prisoner. You're welcome to disagree with me.
No, and no. An armed policeman was there, but the word "were" implies multiple, and that was not the case. He did not stop the killing, because evil exists and it cannot be stopped. The most it can be is limited, and he was not in a position to do so in this case.
By strict definition, yes. Do they still have a higher per capita death rate due to firearms? Yes, yes they do. So, not sure what the point is here. I demonstrated mass killings still exist, but by the strict definition of mass shootings that particular style of mass killings is reduced. Does that mean that the people burned to death and throats slit are any better off? No, of course not.
Now, does Australia treat their citizens like they have rights due to simply existing, and that the government is there to protect the citizens? No, they don't. That makes our system far superior.
You mean, why are we 11th compared with Europe and Canada in death rates per capita from mass shootings, and 12th compared with Europe and Canada in frequency of mass shootings when taken per capita? Because, that would be an accurate question, and one which kind of shows your "pure numbers" thing is drastically misleading.